More retaliation plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial – of course, and it is about time!
Over a decade ago, and based on Article 1 of the Minnesota Constitution, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that whistleblowers have a right to a jury trial on their retaliation claims under Minnesota whistleblower law. Abraham v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342, 354 (Minn. 2002). The Minnesota Supreme Court based its decision largely on the insight that the harm to a whistleblower who has been fired or otherwise treated adversely because of his or her whistleblowing is similar to the harm to someone who has suffered a personal injury – that is, to someone who has a tort claim. Under long-standing Minnesota precedent and the Minnesota Constitution itself, people who have suffered a personal injury have had a right to a jury trial on their tort claims, so the Minnesota Supreme Court reasoned in Abraham that whistleblowers who have been retaliated against should also have a right to a jury trial.
In a very recent decision, Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp., the Minnesota Supreme Court followed the logic of Abraham and decided that workers compensation retaliation plaintiffs also have a right to a jury trial on their claims. In other words, and consistent with Article 1 of the Minnesota Constitution, an employee who is fired or otherwise suffers adverse action by his or her employer because he or she has exercised rights under the workers compensation law shall have a right to a jury trial on his or her retaliation claims. Importantly, the Minnesota Supreme Court so ruled based on the conclusion that the plaintiff’s case in Schmitz was legal in nature – that is, it only sought monetary damages.
The significance of Schmitz does not end, however, with the recognition that plaintiffs with workers compensation retaliation claims have a right to a jury trial. In that case, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the employer’s attempt to introduce an affirmative defense that has traditionally applied to harassment cases under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. This affirmative defense, often referred to as the Faragher/Ellerth defense after the United States Supreme Court decisions that created the defense, enables an employer to escape liability if the employer shows it took timely and sufficient preventive and corrective action and the employee unreasonably failed to avoid harm. As a practical matter, the application of this affirmative defense in harassment cases has meant the defeat of many viable civil rights claims. Thus, plaintiffs everywhere should be grateful that the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the employer’s bid to introduce the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense in retaliation claims under Minnesota law.
